Re: Comcast making a big sucking attempt to clean your spare cash. - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Re: Comcast making a big sucking attempt to clean your spare cash. - Ubuntu ; Bill Baka wrote: > John F. Morse wrote: >> CBFalconer wrote: >> >>> One of the simplest methods of making hydrogen is passing >>> electricity through water (suitably ionized). Hydrogen comes off >>> one electrode, oxygen off the other. Power ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 258

Thread: Re: Comcast making a big sucking attempt to clean your spare cash.

  1. Re: Hydrogen

    Bill Baka wrote:
    > John F. Morse wrote:
    >> CBFalconer wrote:
    >>
    >>> One of the simplest methods of making hydrogen is passing
    >>> electricity through water (suitably ionized). Hydrogen comes off
    >>> one electrode, oxygen off the other. Power in, hydrogen out.

    > That was my point, electrolyzing water is inefficient and uses lots of
    > electricity to do it. Might as well collect the pure Oxygen and do
    > something with it. The cars will burn clean, but no guarantee that the
    > electricity is made cleanly. A giant electricity plant can have greater
    > smoke scrubbers but they will have to put CO2 into the atmosphere.
    >
    > Anybody who thinks we can sequester millions of tons of Carbon is off
    > their rocker because as soon as we run out of oil or natural gas we will
    > be burning the carbon and repeating the cycle.
    >
    > Don't believe everything you hear on the news.
    >
    > Bill Baka



    At the same time progress is being made and nay sayers like you just
    like to keep their head in the sand. After all going to the moon was
    just science fiction not that long ago.
    Progress is being made just not here yet.
    caver1

  2. Re: Hydrogen

    Bill Baka wrote:
    > John F. Morse wrote:
    >
    >> CBFalconer wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> One of the simplest methods of making hydrogen is passing
    >>> electricity through water (suitably ionized). Hydrogen comes off
    >>> one electrode, oxygen off the other. Power in, hydrogen out.
    >>>

    > That was my point, electrolyzing water is inefficient and uses lots of
    > electricity to do it. Might as well collect the pure Oxygen and do
    > something with it. The cars will burn clean, but no guarantee that the
    > electricity is made cleanly. A giant electricity plant can have greater
    > smoke scrubbers but they will have to put CO2 into the atmosphere.
    >
    > Anybody who thinks we can sequester millions of tons of Carbon is off
    > their rocker because as soon as we run out of oil or natural gas we will
    > be burning the carbon and repeating the cycle.
    >
    > Don't believe everything you hear on the news.
    >
    > Bill Baka
    >



    Bill, I'd appreciate it if you would stop attributing things to me that
    I didn't post.

    Please learn to proofread, and how to snip away what is not correct.

    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, AT&T, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  3. Re: Comcast making a big sucking attempt to clean your spare cash.

    On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:50:23 -0500, Dan C wrote:

    > On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:28:48 -0700, Bill Baka wrote:


    >> You still don't get the concept that 99.999% of Hydrogen in all of the
    >> planet is in water in the oceans.


    > I don't think the percentage is that high. Got a reference/cite that
    > supports that claim?


    Yup, that's what I thought. I didn't really expect Bill to actually post
    anything to back up his claim, and I was right (again).

    You must have skipped your high school Chemistry class, eh Bill?


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org


  4. Re: Hydrogen

    John F. Morse wrote:
    > Bill Baka wrote:
    >> John F. Morse wrote:
    >>
    >>> CBFalconer wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> One of the simplest methods of making hydrogen is passing
    >>>> electricity through water (suitably ionized). Hydrogen comes off
    >>>> one electrode, oxygen off the other. Power in, hydrogen out.
    >>>>

    >> That was my point, electrolyzing water is inefficient and uses lots of
    >> electricity to do it. Might as well collect the pure Oxygen and do
    >> something with it. The cars will burn clean, but no guarantee that the
    >> electricity is made cleanly. A giant electricity plant can have greater
    >> smoke scrubbers but they will have to put CO2 into the atmosphere.
    >>
    >> Anybody who thinks we can sequester millions of tons of Carbon is off
    >> their rocker because as soon as we run out of oil or natural gas we will
    >> be burning the carbon and repeating the cycle.
    >>
    >> Don't believe everything you hear on the news.
    >>
    >> Bill Baka
    >>

    >
    >
    > Bill, I'd appreciate it if you would stop attributing things to me that
    > I didn't post.
    >
    > Please learn to proofread, and how to snip away what is not correct.
    >

    It wasn't aimed at you. It was a general comment. Nothing is free except
    death and taxes. Palin and that old guy want to rape Alaska and put
    millions more tons of CO2 into the air and there is no solution to
    sequestering Carbon. It is the burning of the Carbon that releases the
    energy in the first place and we can't 'unburn' billions of tons.
    Besides, plants do a pretty good job as long as we don't cut down all
    the remaining rain forests, because then we are headed for a dead planet.
    Simple science 101.
    Bill Baka
    Replying to nobody in particular.

  5. Re: Hydrogen



    "Fred" wrote in message
    news:gcv6p2$tld$1@registered.motzarella.org...


    > The sun burns for free. Startup costs for solar power are high,
    > but
    > the cells last a lifetime and keep working. Maintenance is minimal
    > and the best thing is they don't dump carbon dioxide into the
    > atmosphere. Hydrogen is a good way to store the energy.
    >


    Lookup the total solar energy delivered per sq meter of your land and work
    out if you can continue your lifestyle with only that much energy to use.

    In the UK it would mean covering the entire land mass with solar cells even
    if they were 90% efficient.

    Solar produced hydrogen is not a solution unless you have deserts.. I
    suppose you could swap being dependent on foreign oil for being dependent on
    foreign hydrogen.

    The real answer is just build some nuclear plants, they are reliable and
    cheaper.


  6. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Fred" wrote in message
    > news:gcv6p2$tld$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >
    >
    >> The sun burns for free. Startup costs for solar power are
    >> high, but
    >> the cells last a lifetime and keep working. Maintenance is minimal
    >> and the best thing is they don't dump carbon dioxide into the
    >> atmosphere. Hydrogen is a good way to store the energy.
    >>

    >
    > Lookup the total solar energy delivered per sq meter of your land and
    > work out if you can continue your lifestyle with only that much energy
    > to use.
    >
    > In the UK it would mean covering the entire land mass with solar cells
    > even if they were 90% efficient.
    >
    > Solar produced hydrogen is not a solution unless you have deserts.. I
    > suppose you could swap being dependent on foreign oil for being
    > dependent on foreign hydrogen.
    >
    > The real answer is just build some nuclear plants, they are reliable and
    > cheaper.




    Look at where the man that I posted about lives. New Jersey. Quite a way
    from a desert. And yes his solar is not efficient enough to to supply
    his needs for electricity all year long or at night. So he is smart
    enough to figure out how to store fuel that he had produced for use at
    those times.
    No this is not the answer for everyone everywhere, But it does work and
    it is feasible in more parts of the world than you naysayers want to accept.
    No its not perfect but what made by man is. And it is alot better than
    fossil fuels.
    If you look he also is using geothermal.
    caver1

  7. Re: Hydrogen

    Fred wrote:

    > The sun burns for free. Startup costs for solar power are high,
    > but the cells last a lifetime and keep working. Maintenance is minimal
    > and the best thing is they don't dump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
    > Hydrogen is a good way to store the energy.
    >


    The output per square metre of the very best solar cells is disappointingly
    poor. Calculate how many square metres of panel you'd need to just run
    your house, and you'll discover you'll need a /very/ big backyard!

    Hydrogen is a difficult gas to store - its tiny molecular size means that it
    can permeate almost every material. This makes it a poor choice for energy
    storage.

    Secondary battery technology is being pushed ahead by the race for viable
    electric cars, but still has a long way to go.

    The only /real/ solution to the problems of fuel is the (for some)
    unpalatable choice of nuclear power stations. Despite the "green" idiots'
    protestations at the "dangers" of nuclear power, it's actually the
    cleanest, safest method of power production, and it isn't controlled by the
    whims of third-world potentates!

    Newer nuclear technologies will make cheap power safely available to all
    (fusion power is not too far away) and may go a long way to ending all the
    strife on the planet...

    C.


  8. Re: Hydrogen

    Fred wrote:
    > The sun burns for free. Startup costs for solar power are high, but
    > the cells last a lifetime and keep working. Maintenance is minimal
    > and the best thing is they don't dump carbon dioxide into the
    > atmosphere. Hydrogen is a good way to store the energy.


    Sure does. Someone once said that if we could capture all the energy it
    radiates the planet with in 1 day we could power mankind's stuff for
    years. I read that so long ago (about 30 years) that I can't even begin
    to give a reference. There was an experimental installation done about
    24 years ago and when the panels were offered for sale they still put
    out at 95% of their brand new power. The oxygen could be saved as well
    and put to some use.
    Bill Baka
    >


  9. Re: Hydrogen

    Christopher Hunter wrote:
    > Fred wrote:
    >
    >> The sun burns for free. Startup costs for solar power are high,
    >> but the cells last a lifetime and keep working. Maintenance is minimal
    >> and the best thing is they don't dump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
    >> Hydrogen is a good way to store the energy.
    >>

    >
    > The output per square metre of the very best solar cells is disappointingly
    > poor. Calculate how many square metres of panel you'd need to just run
    > your house, and you'll discover you'll need a /very/ big backyard!
    >
    > Hydrogen is a difficult gas to store - its tiny molecular size means that it
    > can permeate almost every material. This makes it a poor choice for energy
    > storage.
    >
    > Secondary battery technology is being pushed ahead by the race for viable
    > electric cars, but still has a long way to go.


    So far it is still Lead/acid and that is laughable because the ROHS law
    demands the removal of lead from electronics but not cars.
    >
    > The only /real/ solution to the problems of fuel is the (for some)
    > unpalatable choice of nuclear power stations. Despite the "green" idiots'


    I actually agree with the "green" 'idiots' part. Let them have a state
    and then take away the gas and electric and see how long they are green.

    > protestations at the "dangers" of nuclear power, it's actually the
    > cleanest, safest method of power production, and it isn't controlled by the
    > whims of third-world potentates!
    >
    > Newer nuclear technologies will make cheap power safely available to all
    > (fusion power is not too far away) and may go a long way to ending all the
    > strife on the planet...


    Consider that most reactors were built in the 50's to 70's and the state
    of electronics back then. Human error is a big factor in boringly
    repetitive tasks. Now it might take one computer and one human to watch
    the computer.
    Bill Baka
    >
    > C.
    >


  10. Re: Hydrogen

    On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:31:39 +0000, Christopher Hunter wrote:

    [...]

    > The only /real/ solution to the problems of fuel is the (for some)
    > unpalatable choice of nuclear power stations. Despite the "green"
    > idiots' protestations at the "dangers" of nuclear power, it's actually
    > the cleanest,


    ....apart from the as yet unsolved problem of nuclear waste disposal...

    > safest


    .... give or take the odd Chernobyl...

    > method of power production, and it isn't controlled
    > by the whims of third-world potentates!


    Great, since first world potentates are not nearly as greedy and,
    clearly, have the best interests of humankind at heart.

    > Newer nuclear technologies will make cheap power safely available to all
    > (fusion power is not too far away)


    So we've been saying for the last... how many decades?

    > and may go a long way to ending all
    > the strife on the planet...


    That would be nice.

    --
    Lionel B

  11. Re: Hydrogen

    Lionel B wrote:
    > On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:31:39 +0000, Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >
    > [...]
    >
    >> The only /real/ solution to the problems of fuel is the (for some)
    >> unpalatable choice of nuclear power stations. Despite the "green"
    >> idiots' protestations at the "dangers" of nuclear power, it's actually
    >> the cleanest,

    >
    > ...apart from the as yet unsolved problem of nuclear waste disposal...
    >
    >> safest

    >
    > ... give or take the odd Chernobyl...




    The French have used nuclear for many years. Yes they have the same
    waste disposal problems but how many French Chernobyl's
    have you heard of?




    >> method of power production, and it isn't controlled
    >> by the whims of third-world potentates!

    >
    > Great, since first world potentates are not nearly as greedy and,
    > clearly, have the best interests of humankind at heart.
    >
    >> Newer nuclear technologies will make cheap power safely available to all
    >> (fusion power is not too far away)

    >
    > So we've been saying for the last... how many decades?
    >
    >> and may go a long way to ending all
    >> the strife on the planet...

    >
    > That would be nice.
    >


  12. Re: Hydrogen

    Christopher Hunter wrote:

    > Fred wrote:
    >
    >> The sun burns for free. Startup costs for solar power are high,
    >> but the cells last a lifetime and keep working. Maintenance is
    >> minimal and the best thing is they don't dump carbon dioxide into
    >> the atmosphere. Hydrogen is a good way to store the energy.
    >>

    >
    > The output per square metre of the very best solar cells is
    > disappointingly
    > poor. Calculate how many square metres of panel you'd need to just
    > run your house, and you'll discover you'll need a /very/ big
    > backyard!
    >


    Not really. I don't heat with electricity and covering the roof with
    solar panels while designing an efficient house and possibly
    augmenting it with a windmill will do quite nicely. I could add some
    geothermal power for heating and my carbon footprint shrinks to
    almost zero.

    > Hydrogen is a difficult gas to store - its tiny molecular size means
    > that it
    > can permeate almost every material. This makes it a poor choice for
    > energy storage.
    >

    It's already being used quite well.

    > Secondary battery technology is being pushed ahead by the race for
    > viable electric cars, but still has a long way to go.


    Electric cars could have been built back in the 1960s and people were
    pushing for conversion from petroleum based fuels then. Battery
    technology will advance even further, of course, if we were all using
    electric cars, but what we have is more than sufficient. It's really
    necessary when you consider what the petroleum based eneergy is doing
    to the climate and our health.
    >
    > The only /real/ solution to the problems of fuel is the (for some)
    > unpalatable choice of nuclear power stations. Despite the "green"
    > idiots' protestations at the "dangers" of nuclear power, it's
    > actually the cleanest, safest method of power production, and it
    > isn't controlled by the whims of third-world potentates!
    >

    Talk about going out of the frying pan into the fire. We've been
    using nuclear power for some 50 years, ramping up our usage from zero
    at the end of the first world war and storing the waste in some odd
    places, but 5% or more of the nuclear waste storage sites are already
    leaking. We have to store the waste material essentially forever and
    this cost is never added in, but there is also the cost in human
    lives and the fact that even peaceful uses of nuclear power wind up
    fueling the nuclear bomb industry. Also if all the nuclear waste
    we've produced were evenlyu distributed about the planet, it would
    mean the end of all higher life forms, because we wouldn't be able to
    reproduce.
    Nuclear power would be the most insane choice we could make.

    > Newer nuclear technologies will make cheap power safely available to
    > all (fusion power is not too far away) and may go a long way to
    > ending all the strife on the planet...
    >

    Total crap! "Newer" nuclear reactors are cheaper because they've
    simply deregulated the industry and there are fewer safety measures
    in place making the industry even more insane than it was.
    No Thank-you Dr. Strangelove.

    --
    Peace,
    Fred
    (Remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email).

  13. Re: Hydrogen

    On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:42:35 -0400, caver1 wrote:

    > Lionel B wrote:
    >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:31:39 +0000, Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >>
    >> [...]
    >>
    >>> The only /real/ solution to the problems of fuel is the (for some)
    >>> unpalatable choice of nuclear power stations. Despite the "green"
    >>> idiots' protestations at the "dangers" of nuclear power, it's actually
    >>> the cleanest,

    >>
    >> ...apart from the as yet unsolved problem of nuclear waste disposal...
    >>
    >>> safest

    >>
    >> ... give or take the odd Chernobyl...

    >
    >
    >
    > The French have used nuclear for many years. Yes they have the same
    > waste disposal problems but how many French Chernobyl's
    > have you heard of?


    There's the problem: one's enough. By which I mean that a single nuclear
    accident can have such horrendous consequences that you have to consider
    whether the enterprise is worth the risk. The French signed up big-time
    to that risk. Nice for them, well done the French. Problem is, they also
    unilaterally signed up the rest of the planet to participate in the
    possible consequences of that decision (particularly their near-
    neighbours, of whom I am currently one).

    --
    Lionel B

  14. Re: Hydrogen

    Christopher Hunter wrote:

    > Lionel B wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:31:39 +0000, Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >>
    >> [...]
    >>
    >>> The only /real/ solution to the problems of fuel is the (for some)
    >>> unpalatable choice of nuclear power stations. Despite the "green"
    >>> idiots' protestations at the "dangers" of nuclear power, it's
    >>> actually the cleanest,

    >>
    >> ...apart from the as yet unsolved problem of nuclear waste
    >> disposal...

    >
    > It was solved in the early 1960s, but the processing in the USA was
    > shut down by that Peanut-Farmer president you had, and there hasn't
    > been sufficient investment in the reprocessing plants in this
    > country.
    >


    We need a complete moratorium on nuclear power, or nuclear anything
    except possibly for some very controlled small scale research so that
    maybe we could learn to handle it more safely. We need economic
    reform to go along with it and prevent psychopathic capitalists from
    trying to take control of centralized sources of power... and putting
    stooges on the internet to pump their propaganda lies at unsuspecting
    people.

    --
    Peace,
    Fred
    (Remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email).

  15. Re: Hydrogen

    caver1 wrote:

    > Lionel B wrote:
    >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:31:39 +0000, Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >>
    >> [...]
    >>
    >>> The only /real/ solution to the problems of fuel is the (for some)
    >>> unpalatable choice of nuclear power stations. Despite the "green"
    >>> idiots' protestations at the "dangers" of nuclear power, it's
    >>> actually the cleanest,

    >>
    >> ...apart from the as yet unsolved problem of nuclear waste
    >> disposal...
    >>
    >>> safest

    >>
    >> ... give or take the odd Chernobyl...

    >

    It's just a matter of time, unless you are suggesting that there is a
    gene in the French people that makes them smarter than everybody
    else.

    --
    Peace,
    Fred
    (Remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email).

  16. Re: Hydrogen

    Bill Baka wrote:


    > Consider that most reactors were built in the 50's to 70's and the
    > state of electronics back then. Human error is a big factor in
    > boringly repetitive tasks. Now it might take one computer and one
    > human to watch the computer.


    "One Computer!?!?!" What dangerous crap. Do you know how often
    computers crash? Presumably you'll be running VISTA as an operating
    system on this computer. You'd have a meltdown inside of a week.
    You have no idea what you're talking about and no concept of reliable
    control systems.
    Even beyond the technical problems of reliability, (bearing in mind
    the horrible consequences of failure), there is the administrative
    and political environment to consider. The book of Official
    Explanations points out that ion the 24 hours after the Three Mile
    Island meltdown, there were no less than *20*... *different* official
    explanations of what happened. All the bureaucrats were scurrying
    around trying to effect their own version of a coverup and lying
    their heads off to curry favour with the powers that be. In an
    environment like that, we have to try to make a safe nuclear reactor.
    Impossible! Simply Impossible!

    --
    Peace,
    Fred
    (Remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email).

  17. Re: Hydrogen

    Christopher Hunter wrote:
    > caver1 wrote:
    >
    >> The French have used nuclear for many years. Yes they have the same
    >> waste disposal problems but how many French Chernobyl's
    >> have you heard of?

    >
    > The French have a comprehensive nuclear reprocessing programme, so their
    > waste is low level and in small amounts. They are generating about 65% of
    > their power with nuclear stations, and the rest are hydro-electric. They
    > stopped using fossil fuels for electricity generation some years ago, and
    > are a net /exporter/ of electricity.
    >
    > C.




    If you pay attention to the latest news the French are starting to have
    waste problems. Not as to how but how much and where.
    caver1

  18. Re: Hydrogen

    Fred wrote:
    > caver1 wrote:
    >
    >> Lionel B wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:31:39 +0000, Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >>>
    >>> [...]
    >>>
    >>>> The only /real/ solution to the problems of fuel is the (for some)
    >>>> unpalatable choice of nuclear power stations. Despite the "green"
    >>>> idiots' protestations at the "dangers" of nuclear power, it's
    >>>> actually the cleanest,
    >>> ...apart from the as yet unsolved problem of nuclear waste
    >>> disposal...
    >>>
    >>>> safest
    >>> ... give or take the odd Chernobyl...

    > It's just a matter of time, unless you are suggesting that there is a
    > gene in the French people that makes them smarter than everybody
    > else.
    >




    Only smarter in that they are learning. You think the destruction of the
    earth from fossil fuel usage is going to harm any fewer than Chernobyl
    did or will?
    caver1

  19. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:

    >
    >
    > "Fred" wrote in message
    > news:gcv6p2$tld$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >
    >
    >> The sun burns for free. Startup costs for solar power are
    >> high,
    >> but
    >> the cells last a lifetime and keep working. Maintenance is minimal
    >> and the best thing is they don't dump carbon dioxide into the
    >> atmosphere. Hydrogen is a good way to store the energy.
    >>

    >
    > Lookup the total solar energy delivered per sq meter of your land
    > and work out if you can continue your lifestyle with only that much
    > energy to use.
    >

    More than I could ever want.


    > In the UK it would mean covering the entire land mass with solar
    > cells even if they were 90% efficient.
    >

    Total fantasy. 5 or 6 panels could power most homes in conjunction
    with other energy technologies like geo-thermal heating and solar
    heat conversion panels... passive solar heating, better insolation,
    wind power, etc.

    --
    Peace,
    Fred
    (Remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email).

  20. Re: Hydrogen

    dennis@home wrote:

    >
    >
    > "Fred" wrote in message
    > news:gcv6p2$tld$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    >
    >
    >> The sun burns for free. Startup costs for solar power are high,
    >> but
    >> the cells last a lifetime and keep working. Maintenance is minimal
    >> and the best thing is they don't dump carbon dioxide into the
    >> atmosphere. Hydrogen is a good way to store the energy.
    >>

    >
    > Lookup the total solar energy delivered per sq meter of your land and work
    > out if you can continue your lifestyle with only that much energy to use.


    Well, it is about 1000kw per sqm per year in norther europe, about 2500kw in
    the sahara. Even at just 15% conversion rate as of current masss production
    cells it is easily enough

    > In the UK it would mean covering the entire land mass with solar cells
    > even if they were 90% efficient.


    It is quite obvious that solar energy is yet another thing you know
    absolutely nothing about

    < snip more MD5-dennis bull**** >
    --
    Support your local Search and Rescue unit -- get lost.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast